Skip to main content

About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
recommendation of the joint chiefs of staff, the obama administration will announce formally tomorrow that the ban on women in combat is over. they had been making some progress in this direction, recently opening up the special operations aviation command to female pilots, and last year opening uabout 14,000 positions in the military that had been previously off limits to women. but this announcement could open up 230,000 new jobs to women over the course of the next year. the various service branches will make their own plans for how to do it. if there are individual specific jobs that they still want exempt for women, that they want exempt from this new policy, the service chiefs can ask for that. but that will not be the expectation. the priority, of course, is still military readiness and combat effectiveness above all. but they are making this move, starting tomorrow, to make serving equally recognized, equally. to clear the way for women in combat. joining us now is one of the women whose legal case on this issue may have helped push the military to this decision. she is captai
political advantage over the obama administration, over hillary clinton in particular over the attack in benghazi, what ended up looming unexpectedly large over these proceedings was how benghazi is not an unprecedented thing. the state department has had its personnel and its facilities in danger and facing different kinds of attack over and over and over and over again for decades all over the world. and the attempted political acrimony of today's hearing ended up kind of dead-ending today whenever secretary clinton would bring back what congress does not see as a priority does not see the safety that work at the state department and the resources to ensure that safety. and yes, there is a political agenda to be driven, always, always. but in terms of steps necessary to protect people, so far hillary clinton made the case today that congress has been against it. specifically right now, members of the republican-controlled house have been against it. >> we have asked the congress to help us real locate funds. the senate has given us that authority. we don't yet have it from the house
supports that. and that is the centerpiece of what the obama administration is proposing for guns, for gun reform, background checks for everybody, 91% support. and that is that number that is consistent across polls. the big "new york times" national poll on this last month had it at 92%, not 91%. so you can split those hairs if you want. but basically, it's kind of unanimous. the "washington post" did roughly the same polling. again, a national poll on these policies. but when the "washington post" did it, they broke it down by party, which ends up being really useful. look at the support for the stuff from republicans specifically. the only one that flips, that drops below majority support, the only one where republicans do not give it majority support even though the country as a whole does, is specifically the idea of banning assault rifles again. but still, that one's close. even among republicans, 45% of republicans think we ought to be banning assault weapons again. that's the only one that flips. all the rest of them still majority support even from republicans. banning high-capac
are anonymous, telling the press they are "allies" with the obama administration, who are staying anonymous because they fear retribution or fear from the white house. this whole thing just seems off, right? i mean there are obviously two intentions with setting it up like this. they're trying to convey the impression that this
against hagel are anonymous, telling the press they are "allies" with the obama administration, who are staying anonymous because they fear retribution or fear from the white house. this whole thing just seems off, right? i mean there are obviously two intentions with setting it up like this. they're trying to convey the impression that this is a white house who attacks and tears up anybody who disagrees with them. that is the way the right likes to think about this white house, that is the way they operate. they may be more effective if they did, but that is not what they do. more broadly, they're asserting there is broad opposition to chuck hagel, we're just not allowed to know who it is. i'm not buying it it, i say bull-pucky, i might be wrong, but i call bull-pucky. and if i am wrong, there is an easy way to prove it. come out, come out, whoever you are.
instead of barack obama being sworn in again yesterday, the romney/ryan administration would have done everything they could to overturn roe versus wade. and that means that if there were a vacancy on the supreme court, any romney nominee to the supreme court realistically could be expected to be a surefire bet to vote to overturn that 40-year-old decision. when president obama leaned over to hug the rather fierce but rather small figure of 79-year-old supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg yesterday at the capitol luncheon that was filled with all the washington vips, and president obama had that moment with ruth bader ginsburg, that physical contact, that hug between that particular justice and this particular president was a very real manifestation of the consequences of this election we just had. today outside the supreme court, as they do every year on the anniversary of roe, anti-abortion groups protested, expressing their view that it should be illegal to get an abortion in this country. there were also counter protests. people and groups supporting the decision defending abo
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)